Note that both "Defense Planning Guidance" and "Defense Policy Guidance" are used. Also:

"Rumsfeld must make a clear and consistent case for a force equally capable of deterring the rise of a great-power challenger, preserving the peace in key regions and shaping the world in line with American principles and interests -- the force advocated by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance.[1]

From jwm: I wonder if the summary paragraph for the main PNAC article ought to indicate that in 2003 members include the current Vice President, Vice President's Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Undersecretary of Defense for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, and the brother of the President, who, as governor of Florida, oversaw strategic disenfranchisement operations that illegally tipped the 2000 presidential race to the president.

Nearly all this information is available below in the article, but its significance--for example, that the PNAC study *Rebuilding America's Defenses* is the blueprint for the global military empire that has been in the process of implementation since the morning of 9/11/01--needs somehow to grab the reader in the first paragraph or two.

Follow the Money

All of the work you've done here is excelent. I'm afraid, though, that you've skimped on the single most telling piece: The money. Ten members of Bush's cabinate worked for years with the Project for the New American Century. Now, for them to be able to afford to do so they must either be rich or someone is paying them. If they are rich, what are their holdings? If not, who paid them? I understand that both questions are difficult but the answers can completely change the whole dialogue. Currently, the neocons in Bush's cabinate are seen, for the most part, as people with different views. I suspect, however, that they were paid for their efforts. I further suspect that, when the source of the funding, both to PNAC and to the individuals involved, is revealed most people will say "Ah ha!" Just a guess. I know it's a difficult thing to do. You provide excelent docuentation for AEI. If they were the only players, then it would look like the war in Iraq was promoted by oil interests. The information you have on, say, Perele, suggest it might be defense contractors.

After identifying the source of the money, it will be a simple matter to demonstrate how those people or companies benefited from the war in Iraq. Imagine, for example, the impact of discovering that a large portion of the funding came from Halliburton?

I would love to help. E-mail me at brianebaxter@hotmail.com

Brian Baxter

______
From the article on PNAC: "The report struck a prescient note when it observed that "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." It is easy to be prescient when you are planning to make the event that you forecast a reality. For a lot more research and articles about how they did it, see www.letsroll911.org.